Moody v The King - [2025] NZHC 2004

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND CHRISTCHURCH REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA ŌTAUTAHI ROHE

CRI-2025-409-151, 152, 153

[2025] NZHC 2004

BETWEEN BENJAMIN JAMES MOODY
Appellant

AND THE KING
Respondent

Hearing: 17 July 2025

Appearances: A J McKenzie for Appellant

A M Harvey for Respondent

Judgment: 21 July 2025

JUDGMENT OF EATON J

(appeal against sentence)

MOODY v R [2025] NZHC 2004 [21 July 2025]

Introduction

[1] Benjamin Moody was sentenced to 21 months’ imprisonment after pleading guilty to charges of driving contrary to the terms of an alcohol interlock licence (aggravated),1 operating a vehicle recklessly,2 failing to stop for flashing red and blue lights (aggravated),3 breach of community work,4 conversion of a motor vehicle5 and common assault.6 He appeals his sentence solely on the basis that he should have been granted leave to apply for home detention.

Facts

Conversion of a motor vehicle and common assault

[2] On 9 March 2024, the victim was at Mr Moody’s address. Mr Moody asked the victim to attend the Mongols Gang Pad in Burnham with him for some drinks. The victim agreed. They returned to Mr Moody’s address at midnight, and the victim advised Mr Moody he was going to sleep in his Ute. Mr Moody punched the victim in the nose, causing it to start bleeding, and asked the victim for his car keys. The victim obliged, fearing he would be assaulted again, and Mr Moody left the address.

[3] Mr Moody’s co-defendant, Mr Taylor, a prospect of the Mongols gang, arrived at the address shortly before Mr Moody returned. Mr Moody punched the victim multiple times. The victim tried to leave the address but was followed by the defendants. Mr Moody told the victim to have a shower and go to bed.

[4] The next morning, the victim woke up and asked Mr Moody for his car keys. Mr Moody told him he was not getting them back and the victim left before returning later in the day to get his keys. Mr Moody again told the victim he was not getting them back as he had “disrespected the Mongol Nation”. Mr Moody’s co-defendant told the victim he might get his vehicle back if he drove it to the Mongols Pad and

1      Land Transport Act 1998, ss 32(1)(b) and 32(4) — maximum penalty two years’ imprisonment or
$6,000 fine.
2      Land Transport Act s 35(1)(a) — maximum penalty three months’ imprisonment or $4,500 fine.
3      Land Transport Act, ss 52A(1)(a)(ii), 52A(5), 52A(6) and 114(2) — maximum penalty three months’ imprisonment.
4      Sentencing Act 2002, s 71(1)(a) — maximum penalty three months’ imprisonment or $1,000 fine.
5      Crimes Act 1961, s 226(1)(a) — maximum penalty seven years’ imprisonment.
6      Crimes Act, s 196 — maximum penalty one year imprisonment.

spoke to someone there. The victim drove with the co-defendant in the passenger seat. Upon arrival, the victim was told to either pay the Mongols $14,000 or hand over his vehicle. The victim then signed a piece of paper…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Moody v The King

Details

AGLC: Moody v The King [2025] NZHC 2004
Case: [2025] NZHC 2004
Decision Date: 21 July 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Benjamin Moody appeals his sentence of 21 months’ imprisonment, imposed after he pleaded guilty to various charges including driving contrary to the terms of an alcohol interlock licence, operating a vehicle recklessly, failing to stop for flashing red and blue lights, breach of community work, conversion of a motor vehicle, and common assault. Moody contends that he should have been granted leave to apply for home detention.

The court was required to decide whether the District Court Judge erred in declining to commute the sentence of 21 months’ imprisonment to a sentence of home detention. The appellant argued that the Judge erred in considering Moody’s driving history, failed to weigh the seriousness of his previous breaches of home detention, and did not consider the upcoming birth of Moody’s child. The respondent submitted that the Judge appropriately weighed the purposes and principles of sentencing and that there was no error in the sentence imposed.

The High Court held that the Judge did not err in declining to commute the sentence to home detention. The court agreed with the Judge’s assessment that Moody’s appalling history of driving offences and his continued offending, despite previous sentences of home detention, required a sentence of imprisonment. The court also noted that Moody’s breaches of home detention were not outweighed by his compliance with a later, less restrictive sentence of community detention. Furthermore, the court found that the upcoming birth of Moody’s child, while a factor to be considered, did not outweigh the persistent and significant risk that Moody’s driving offending posed to the wider community.

The appeal was dismissed.

Orders